Obama and Air Force One, the Video

By Garance Franke-RutaNow making the rounds comes this segment from a forthcoming National Geographic TV series "On Board Air Force One," set to begin airing on Jan. 25, in which then-President-elect Barack Obama on Jan. 4 boards one of the planes that will serve as Air Force One once he is sworn in as president.

The episode shows Obama greeting Col. Scott Turner of the Air Force at the start of his "first official flight as the new pilot," according to the narrator, who also notes that Air Force One gets new pilots when presidents change. The trip took Obama to the District from Chicago.

"Good to see you. You're the pilot of Air Force One?" Obama greets him.

"Yes sir, it will be my privilege to serve you," says Turner.

"You know, I've got to say, you're out of central casting. You're exactly what I want the pilot of Air Force One to look like. You look like you know how to fly. You look like Sam Shepard in The Right, 'The Right Stuff'," Obama says.

Technically speaking, both National Geographic and Obama play loose with presidential terminology on the show. Air Force One is the moniker for any of the Boeing 747s that carry U.S. presidents. But since Obama had not been sworn in at the time of the flight, it was likely given a "special air mission" label for the occasion. Now that Obama is president, however, the term will apply to any of the Air Force jetliners he travels on.

The show jumps from his entry to Obama ordering his first meal on what will become one of his presidential planes. "I'll see how you guys do a burger," he tells chief flight attendant Reggie Dickson, ordering it cooked "medium-well," with cheddar cheese, dijon mustard, lettuce and tomato. And he asks, "If you have, like, salad or some vegetables or something." When the Dickson asks, "No fries or anything like that?" Obama replies, "Oh, I'll still take the fries."

Which "other" board? If Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, do you think that irrelevant Constitutionally? Have you even read the Keyes lawsuit?

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 at the time allowed for registration of birth in Hawaii of any child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. In addition, between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16.

“Short-form by declaration” fraud is a plausible explanation that seems to fit the known facts. If Obama was born in Kenya, and if his mother simply traveled back to Hawaii with him shortly thereafter, and falsely declared his birth (including the newspaper announcements), then she alone broke the law, without the assistance of any co-conspirators. He may not even know the truth -- although I doubt that, or he wouldn't be fighting the release -- the original LONG FORM vault record in Hawaii, if it exists, has not been examined, and Obama has refused to allow it to be examined. (The Government of Hawaii has stated that the “Certificate of Live Birth” (which appeared on Obama’s website) is valid, and it may be valid, if it was produced from short-form database records. However, if the short form records were fraudulently established by declaration, in the absence of a long-form witness of live birth, then a fraud has been perpetrated.

Another interesting thought: if it was PROVEN that Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, but he refused to leave the White House, what could Congress do? Impeachment only works to remove the President from office. However, as he isn't legally the President, impeachment would seem to be impossible. The courts could obviously stop any purported action by the usurper President. I guess the Cabinet could try to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, but what if a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments (or of such other body as Congress may by law provide) refuse to sign off? Talk about a Constitutional crisis.

I wouldn't be as concerned about Castro, UBL or Kim Jong-il finding out as I would be about the head of some multi-national corp. If there's a smoking gun on Obama, why do you think that no one would take it seriously? Even if it was PROVEN that Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, you think he's Constitutionally Qualified, or you don't care about said Qualifications?!

Fair enough, blackmail would be a reasonable threat if what you claim is true. We learned that Monica and Bill did engage in inappropriate activities, so Bill would have had cause for concern. However, you could threaten to expose me as a cross-dresser who embezzled funds from my company which I would simply ignore since it has no basis in fact. The smoking gun on Obama may be out there, but if it is no one seems to believe that it is ever going to be taken seriously. Should we be concerned that Castro, UBL or Kim Jong-il will be the one to expose this?

There's no need for a vast conspiracy. My gut feeling is that it was not politically correct to question his birthplace (or his Muslim ties). I doubt it will ever be brought to light now -- Congress and the Supreme Court could simply be left in the dark -- the media willingly went along though. My bigger concern is the potential for blackmail. Unless you think that someone finding out about Monica Lewinsky was not a potential for blackmail against Clinton back then, I would hope that any reasonable person could see that being an issue.

Well, I think that you have made it clear why you believe that Obama is not legally POTUS, but I am trying to understand whether you believe that there is a vast conspiracy or some other reason keeping the truth from getting out.

JakeD...you don't have to speculate on the motives of anyone named, but what is your gut feeling why NO ONE is talking about this? Is it your contention that there are organizations working behind the scenes who will discover the smoking gun in the near future and invalidate Obama as POTUS? Is there a grand conspiracy that involves the Supreme Court, Congress and nearly everyone in the media? We know WHY you feel the way you do, but how is it that you seem to be one of a handful of people who continue to believe this?

This came up four years ago, too. Dennis Hastert was swearing in Dick Cheney, and Hastert said it wrong. Guess what? Cheney knew it correctly, and Cheney said it correctly. No harm, no foul. No fake worrying about "embarrassing the Speaker of the House." I can't believe you Obamaniacs actually think that Obama was trying not to embarrass Roberts! Like voting against his confirmation in the first place was such a kind gesture. Wasn't it MORE of an embarrassment to summon CJ Roberts back, with his tail between his legs, to the White House for a do-over?!

I didn't know that they allowed you access to a computer in that "rest home" you are obviously residing in, JakeD - I guess it means your hands have stopped shaking. Now if we can just work on your grasp on reality...

"It has been suggested that the wording of the 20th Amendment, which makes no reference to the oath, superseded the requirement set out in article two of the Constitution, that the oath be taken before the President begins the discharge of his duties.

It has also been suggested, however, that the oath is still necessary, because the 20th Amendment only stipulated that the four year presidential term of office shall start at noon on January 20th, not that the President shall enter upon the exercise of his Office at that moment. The start of the term does not exactly coincide with the new President entering upon the execution of his duties."

If there was any merit in the argument that Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and therefore ineligible to be POTUS, why does this only have limited traction? Even if you believe that the MSM media is so totally in the tank for Obama, how do you get people at the highest levels of government to go along with this conspiracy? Why don't you hear O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Drudge trying to at least keep this alive? Why did the Roberts' court refuse to hear the argument?

I agree that we had a new "President" (as you all know, I say it was Joe Biden) as of 12 noon, January 20, 2009 -- however, the 20th Amendment did not cancel out the requirement of the oath, so maybe we just have to agree to disagree on that part -- I would argue he cannot EXECUTE HIS OFFICE (i.e. do anything official) until the oath is taken.

I do agree about no Bible or even "so help me God" being legally necessary (neither does the Chief Justice, or anyone else for that matter, have to administer the oath). Politically, however, I agree with those like SAINT--The, et al., re: not including another Bible.

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Obama became POTUS at 12 noon, oath or no oath. Article II stipulates an oath which has been taken, regardless of whether you consider it on Tuesday or last night.

Can anybody here tell me why multiple news agencies reported that Obama officially became POTUS at 12:00 noon even though he did not take the oath of office until later?
Just curious.
JakeD you can keep on wasting your time believing whatever you want, meanwhile Obama THE POTUS is immediately trying to clean up the massive wreckage bestowed upon us from the last 8 years.

I guess with all the wreckage left behind by the last 8 years JakeD had a mental breakdown and chose to live in an alternate universe where up is down and what one desires becomes truth without ever having to supply any substantial evidence.